Replies

First, there was a reason why I put the terms into quotes, and that is because what I am talking about are the organization oriented atheists, and not the general person who just doesn't believe.

Now, onto your response. The most glaring and discrediting action that anyone can take is that of hypocrisy. A anti-drug activist caught with crack, a anti-porn activist caught buying mail-order porn, a district attorney caught bribing an official. These things destroy credibility and ruin any message, regardless of how good it is, that comes from these people.

What these "Atheists" (again, in quotes) are doing is saying, "Your beliefs are wrong and should not be allowed into the public realm. But my beliefs, or lack there of, are correct and should be in the public realm." Hypocrisy, especially for those who insist that they follow Reason.

Reason would state that those ideas who hold the most value will dominate in an open dialogue, while those ideas that are lacking will fade. So followers of Reason would have no problem putting up their beliefs against beliefs that are wrong and lacking.

But instead of putting ideas into the marketplace, they wish to close the market to competing ideas. This is why it is hypocritical.

Advocacy of a position is fine and I doubt many on this site would disagree. Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross? If the position that there is no God is correct, then shouldn't that memorial win out in the end? And if it doesn't, how does it hurt the atheist if others believe in God?

Look at it from this way.

If I believe I am on a boat that is sinking, and another boat comes up and I step onto that, I beleive that everyone on the boat I just stepped off of will drown. Is it not my moral imperative to attempt to get others to step off of the sinking boat, onto the boat that is not sinking?

Now if you believe we are standing in a field and I take a step away from one area into another, and tell you to get off the sinking boat, why should it bother you so much? Where is your inducement to be angry at me for imagining there is a sinking boat and a safe boat? Where is your moral imperative to convince me that there are no boats?

If you truly do not believe that either of our fates are going to be any different, from what position do you advocate? If we die and that's the end, then all of life is a vanity, and all existance a wisp of smoke; seemingly substantial, but really of absolutely no consequence.

Who cares if Hitler killed 10 million, we will all die and disappear anyway. Who cares if we live under freedom or oppression, there is nothing beyond this life either for us or for future generations. Who cares about being good and kind to each other, goodness and kindness will not hold off death and death is the end of all of our conciousness. What a hopeless way to live. Why work to make things better? To what end? The future generations will have no more hope than you, so what is the point?

Your arguments fail to address the issue of government sponsorship.

Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross? If the position that there is no God is correct, then shouldn't that memorial win out in the end?

Uh...argument from popularity? The truth value of a god's existence is based on a majority believing that it exists?

Who cares if Hitler killed 10 million, we will all die and disappear anyway...

I'm trying to figure out just what you are attempting to argue here. Are you suggesting that you think that it is "better" to believe in a god and an afterlife?

Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross?

Maybe there is a solution that will satisfy both sides.

For Christians, leave the Cross in its current place.

Next to the Cross, erect a monument for the atheists, which of course would be . . . nothing.

Great reply, Anitius!